SENATE COMMITTEE IS SPLIT BY PARTY ON A BUSH NOMINEE

By NEIL A. LEWIS

Published: May 18, 2001

WASHINGTON, May 17—
The Senate Judiciary Committee deadlocked along party lines today on the selection of Theodore B. Olson to be solicitor general, with Democratic opponents complaining that Mr. Olson had earlier misled the committee about his involvement in anti-Clinton activities.

The 9-to-9 vote occurred after a brief but rancorous session that highlighted the newly confrontational atmosphere in the committee over President Bush's nominations. And it means the nomination will almost certainly go to the evenly divided Senate for a vote.

The committee had delayed two earlier scheduled votes on Mr. Olson because of concerns Democrats raised about his testimony. And while some Democrats wanted more time to investigate the matter, some of the opposition to Mr. Olson also reflects broader, ideological and partisan antipathy toward him.

Along with his wife, Barbara, Mr. Olson was widely known as a major figure in the relentless campaign of criticism of President Bill Clinton over the last several years. Mr. Olson, who is an accomplished appellate lawyer, also successfully represented Mr. Bush in last year's Supreme Court case on the Florida vote that resulted in Mr. Bush's winning the presidency.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, who is the ranking Democrat on the committee, said he was voting against the nomination because the committee's Republicans had refused to agree to a broader investigation into Mr. Olson's truthfulness in describing his role in anti-Clinton projects.

At issue are Mr. Olson's unequivocal statements that he had had no direct involvement in a venture at The American Spectator magazine in which a $2.4 million fund, established by the conservative philanthropist Richard Mellon Scaife, was used to underwrite efforts to find negative information about Mr. Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton from their time in Arkansas.

Although Mr. Olson participated in sessions at the magazine in which articles about the Clintons were discussed, he said he was unaware of the project or the fact that there was such a fund that came from Mr. Scaife.

Mr. Leahy has repeatedly challenged Mr. Olson's assertions and said today, ''I have become concerned that Mr. Olson has not shown a willingness or ability to be sufficiently candid and forthcoming with the Senate so that I would have confidence in his abilities to carry out the responsibilities of the solicitor general,'' the official who is the voice of the United States before the Supreme Court.

Mr. Leahy said there were many discrepancies raised by Mr. Olson's testimony before the committee and statements and records connected to his association with The American Spectator.

Senator Orrin G. Hatch, the Utah Republican who is chairman of the committee, said the effort by the Democrats amounted to an unfair caricature of Mr. Olson, whom he characterized as ''an incredibly accomplished person,'' and he lamented what he said was the latest example of personal destruction in Senate politics.

''I believe that the extensive and decisive record before us shows that Mr. Olson has been truthful and forthright to this committee on all counts,'' Mr. Hatch said.

Under the recently adopted rules that were designed to govern a Senate divided equally between 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats, the tie vote in the committee allows the nomination to be brought to the floor at the request of either party's leader, and Mr. Hatch said Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican leader, is expected to do that. Under the rules, the Senate is obliged to conduct a four-hour debate on the nomination.

The deadlocked vote came against a backdrop of deeper divisions in the Senate committee that confirms federal judicial candidates and senior Justice Department officials as Mr. Bush steers a more conservative course in the legal arena. The fight over Mr. Olson's nomination as solicitor general, a prestigious job that is sometimes a steppingstone to the Supreme Court, comes only a few months after the contentious confirmation fight in which the judiciary panel split 10 to 8 in favor of John Ashcroft as attorney general.

The Democrats could block the Olson nomination with a filibuster once it reached the floor although that would represent an extraordinary breakdown in bipartisan relations.

Some Democrats today offered the outline of a possible compromise; One senior Democratic staff aide said the party would hold together in opposition on the floor unless Mr. Olson and the Republicans agreed to some kind of compromise in which they provided the documents and witnesses Mr. Leahy has requested.

And a spokesman for Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who once held out the possibility of mounting a filibuster against the Ashcroft nomination, said it was premature to consider floor strategy for the Olson nomination. But the spokesman also said, ''We remain hopeful that Mr. Olson sees fit to provide some of the information we have sought.''

While a compromise is possible, it is axiomatic in Washington that the longer a nomination lingers the weaker its chances.

In his long litigation career, Mr. Olson has specialized in taking on conservative cases like his successful effort to force the University of Texas to eliminate affirmative action in its law school admissions. Mr. Olson was less successful in his defense of the Virginia Military Institute's men-only admission policy.

Mr. Olson was also investigated by an independent counsel for giving possibly misleading answers to a Congressional committee about an environmental program. After unsuccessfully challenging the independent counsel law, the prosecutor, Alexia Morrison, dropped the case. She said that his testimony probably did not constitute a prosecutable offense but ''it might have been potentially misleading.''

Senator Leahy said today that he was seeking to obtain an audit of the Arkansas Project done for The American Spectator to see whether and how much Mr. Olson's law firm was paid out of the Scaife fund. He also asked to have the committee interview about nine people, most of them from The American Spectator.

David Brock, a former writer for the magazine, has said he told the committee that Mr. Olson was deeply involved in the Arkansas Project. But the others on Mr. Leahy's list have written letters saying Mr. Brock is mistaken. Mr. Leahy said he thought the people should be questioned by committee staff.

The fight over the Olson nomination is for many a continuation of the raucous battles involving the Clintons over the last several years. Some Democrats acknowledge that they are delighted to see Mr. Olson and his wife having to deal with the same kind of withering scrutiny to which they subjected the Clintons.

Noting Mr. Olson's political activities, Mr. Leahy today said that he questioned whether his ''connection with so many far-reaching anti-Clinton efforts marks Mr. Olson as a thoroughgoing partisan who will not be able to check his partisan instincts at the door to the office of solicitor general.''

At one point in the hearing, Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, fiercely criticized Mr. Leahy, saying he was using word games to smear Mr. Olson. ''This man's integrity is being impugned and all you've offered is generalizations,'' Mr. Specter said. He said the issues Mr. Leahy raised would quickly be thrown out in any court.